Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV20365, Date: 2024-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV20365    Hearing Date: September 20, 2024    Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27 

 

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

Hearing Date: 9/20/24¿ 

CASE NO./NAME: 24SMCV01429 TRIRETTA KENNEDY vs HENRY URIEL VILLATORO; 23STCV20365 County of Los Angeles vs. Henry Uriel Villatoro, et al.

Moving Party: Defendant County of Los Angeles

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: Sufficient¿ 

Ruling: MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE IS GRANTED. 

 

Two related actions are currently pending in Department 27: (1) County of Los Angeles vs. Henry Uriel Villatoro, et al., Case Number 23STCV20365, and (2) Triretta Kennedy vs. Henry Uriel Villatoro, et al., Case Number 24SMCV01429. Both actions stem from an automobile collision that occurred on March 24, 2022, at the intersection of Slauson Avenue and Overhill Drive in Los Angeles, California. During the accident, Plaintiff, an employee of the County of Los Angeles, was rear-ended by Defendant, Henry Uriel Villatoro. At the time of the incident, Plaintiff was acting within the scope of her employment and received workers' compensation from the County for her injuries.

 

The action of Triretta Kennedy vs. Henry Uriel Villatoro, et al., is a personal injury lawsuit. The action of County of Los Angeles vs. Henry Uriel Villatoro, et al., is a subrogation action under Labor Code, Section 3852, to recover workers' compensation benefits paid to and on behalf of Triretta Kennedy for injuries sustained in the incident (Labor Code, § 3852).

 

On May 28, 2024, Defendant filed a Notice of Related Case in both the County and Kennedy actions. On June 12, 2024, the Court ordered that the pending cases be related. Defendant County of Los Angeles now moves the Court to consolidate the two actions.

 

Legal Standard 

 

California Rules of Court, rule 3.350, subdivision (a) states in relevant part: 

¿¿ 

(1) A notice of motion to consolidate must: 

(A) List all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record; 

(B) Contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest-numbered case shown first; and 

(C) Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated. 

¿¿ 

(2) The motion to consolidate: 

(A) Is deemed a single motion for the purpose of determining the appropriate filing fee, but memorandums, declarations, and other supporting papers must be filed only in the lowest-numbered case;¿¿ 

(B) Must be served on all attorneys of record and all non-represented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and 

(C) Must have a proof of service filed as part of the motion.¿ 

¿¿ 

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350, subd. (a)). Also, the consolidation statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, states in relevant part: 

 

(a)¿ When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. 

¿¿ 

(b)¿ The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues, preserving the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States. 

 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).)¿¿¿ 

 

The granting or denial of the motion to consolidate rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion. (See Fellner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509, 511.) 

 

Discussion

 

The Court finds that the motion substantially complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.350. Notice of the motion was filed in the higher numbered case. Notice, motion, and supporting documents were filed in the lower numbered case. The caption shows both cases, with the lower number case first. Notice, motion and supporting documents were served on all parties in both cases. Both cases are deemed related and are currently in Department 27.

 

Further, the Court finds that both cases are based on the same set of facts arising from an auto accident where Plaintiff, who was then under the scope of employment for the County of Los Angeles, was rear-ended by Defendant. Plaintiff received worker’s compensation from the County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant for personal injury, and the County of Los Angeles filed a subrogation claim against Defendant for workers' compensation benefits provided to Plaintiff as a result of the accident. Because the underlying incident giving rise to the two suits is the same, consolidation will streamline the resolution of the related disputes. Both cases will have significant crossover in witnesses and evidence, including details of the incident, damages, and Defendant’s actions. The same witnesses will testify about the car accident and the extent of Plaintiff’s injuries. Evidence such as medical reports will be relevant for both cases. No opposition was filed. Thus, the Court GRANTS the present motion with 23STCV20365 as the lead case.

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

 

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept27@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

 

Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

 

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.